[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPM31RKqMGAvFh1JmUjCjBo4EJWqA39i8=YPiUw8GUkG9dj7Fw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 13:59:22 -0700
From: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] sched: consider runnable load average in move_tasks
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 01:53:44AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
>> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> wrote:
>> > Except using runnable load average in background, move_tasks is also
>> > the key functions in load balance. We need consider the runnable load
>> > average in it in order to the apple to apple load comparison.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
>> > ---
>> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++++-
>> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > index 0bf88e8..790e23d 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > @@ -3966,6 +3966,12 @@ static unsigned long task_h_load(struct task_struct *p);
>> >
>> > static const unsigned int sched_nr_migrate_break = 32;
>> >
>> > +static unsigned long task_h_load_avg(struct task_struct *p)
>> > +{
>> > + return div_u64(task_h_load(p) * (u64)p->se.avg.runnable_avg_sum,
>> > + p->se.avg.runnable_avg_period + 1);
>>
>> Similarly, I think you also want to at least include blocked_load_avg here.
>
> I'm puzzled, this is an entity weight. Entity's don't have blocked_load_avg.
>
> The purpose here is to compute the amount of weight that's being moved by this
> task; to subtract from the imbalance.
Sorry, what I meant to say here is:
If we're going to be using a runnable average based load here the
fraction we take (currently instantaneous) in tg_load_down should be
consistent.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists